The UFO Taliban
One of the most provocative and interesting videos I have seen over the past five years was an interview with Professor Robert Eisenmann, a Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, on the subject of the real-life Jesus and James, brother of Jesus. It was Eisenmann's research that partly inspired Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln, the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and later Dan Brown, author of the Da Vinci Code.
In his interview Eisenmann talked about the sect that Jesus belonged to, the Zadokites, an extreme fundamentalist group who sought to unite the kingdom of Israel under its leadership even by committing violence against their fellow Jews. In explaining the motivation of this sect, and indeed, motivations of extreme fundamentalist sects in general, Eisenmann said that this group believed that it carried with them the holy spirit.
And in carrying with them the holy spirit, they believed that they had to be completely pure and to purify those with whom they came in contact. These were the zealots. And in the ensuing centuries zealotry flourished among all types of religious groups and continues to this very day right before our eyes.
But zealotry is not confined to religion. It crops up in politics and in all types of belief systems, even in the great nonscience of ufology. Here is a perfect example of the foolishness of zealotry because in ufology not only is there no real science, there are actually no real UFOs because those who have them are certainly not going to hand them out to those who don't. So the zealots run around screaming at anyone who doesn't adhere to their nonbelief systems.
Essentially the zealots' arguments turn out to be that one must believe as they do or will they attack all those who don't. They attack charlatans, but since they do not have the sole patent on the truth, who's to say who the charlatans are?
In essence, they turn out to be those whom the zealots call charlatans, just like the victims of the seventeenth century New England witch hunts. In this way, our modern UFO zealots act like the body snatchers of the classic movies, hissing at those who don't conform and excoriating those whom they deem to be frauds.
In a subject like ufology, which is clearly a case-driven area of study, UFO cases are evaluated on the basis of evidence. Evidence consists of testimony -- often subjective witness testimony -- and those pieces of substantiating evidence that supports the testimony. Case in point: RAF Bentwaters, where the subjective testimony of witnesses like Charles Halt and James Penniston form the heart of the story.
What is the evidence that we cite to substantiate the testimony of Halt and Penniston who state that on two successive December nights in 1980 a strange craft hovered over RAF Bentwaters and landed in Rendlesham forest? There are the ground impressions that Penniston and Halt saw at the landing spot, the radiation levels around that landing spot, the inscriptions on the craft that Penniston said he copied, and the testimony of a security officer in the watch tower who told Halt he saw the whole event from his vantage point.
There are those who refute this evidence, citing the beam of light from Orford Ness that could have been confused for the light of a UFO, rabbit scrapings that would account for the impressions in the ground, and a mass confusion among the military personnel that night as panic seeped through the teams stumbling through the forest.
Rendlesham is a classic mass UFO sighting case that very few zealots would challenge because of the credibility of the witnesses, the consistency of the testimony, and the record of radiation above normal levels at the landing zone. As a secondary form of substantiation, the British Ministry of Defence cited this case as one without a conventional explanation to date.
Would the zealots challenge Roswell and the video testimony of Lt. Walter Haut, one of the participants of the cover-up who went on the record almost sixty years later to describe what really happened in 1947? Would they challenge the subjective testimony of Betty and Barney Hill, the testimonies of astronauts Gordon Cooper and Edgar Mitchell, or the testimony of Socorro, New Mexico police officer Lonnie Zamora? I don't think so.
The fact is that they spend their time attacking those cases about which most people in the nonfield of ufology don't even care. In fact, UFO zealotry is a largely empty argument because most people enjoy the promise of ufology much more than the disputes within ufology.
In my own situation on UFO Hunters I've found that the people who write simply want to see the process of the investigation even if the results don't always show anything conclusive. It reminds me of the instructions that your elementary school teacher gave you when she handed out the arithmetic test.
You always had to show the long division because you got credit for the process even if the answer was wrong. In algebra and trigonometry, you had to show the series of equations that brought you to an answer. And you got credit if you knew the process. Even in law school, you had to show the argument and not just jump to a guilty or not guilty conclusion.
That's why every time someone from the zealotry bench screams into a microphone, "It's a hoax," it's time to tune it out. Conclusion reached by a majority of one. No argument needed. This is the argument of the Taliban: strictly fundamentalist and without logic.
Ufology is existential. I think you should go with what's there and not with what you want to be there or with what your predetermined scheme says what should be there. Because if your scheme dictates what the conclusion is, you will certainly agree with the official policy of the Pentagon: There are no UFOs.
Bill Birnes
14 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (14)
Hi Dr. Birnes,
As I was searching for a response to your above post, I came across this article/essay written by James Oberg in the New Scientist on October 11 in 1979:
"....Ufology is still struggling to achieve scientific and popular respectability, so it is perhaps understandable that public pronouncements of ufologists would be primarily in the persuasive rather than expository vein. It can thus be observed that all the traditional tricks of the Madison Avenue advertising executive's trade are followed: appeals to authority ("Jimmy Carter saw a UFO"; "our heroic astronauts have seen UFOsl"); assertions of the consequent ("the Universe is so large that other civilizations must exist out there!"); the bandwagon appeal ("Most Americans now believe in UFOs''); the conspiratorial appeal("The government knows all about it but is hiding the truth"); and the salvation appeal ("The people from space will come to bail us out of our self-indicted miseries"). "
Mr. Oberg went on to say this:
"...Few choose to look behind the myths. The much-touted "Jimmy Carter UFO", for example, was never investigated by any of the ufologists who flaunted it or by any of the newsmen who advert ised it -- they simply passed it on as a good story, a useful anecdote. Yet when one skeptical young investigator named Robert Sheaffer tracked the case down, he uncovered gross inaccuracies in Carter's four-year-old recollections of the date and location of the event, and also came up with testimony from other witnesses which helped determine an entirely prosaic solution to the account. Nevertheless, the "Jimmy Carter UFO" is still constantly being referred to by UFO spokesmen who, due to an unconscious media blackout of skeptical work such as Sheaffer's, probably do not even know or care that it has been investigated and "solved". "
And Oberg concluded below:
"...Where is the "ufology" movement likely to be after another 30 years? Perhaps new evidence will finally appear which can stand up to scientific scrutiny. Perhaps self-styled ufologists will establish truly scientific standards of evidence, will accept the burden of proof, will produce "falsifiable" theories, and will seek to formulate their science on positive rather than negative logic. Perhaps something significant will come out of this after all.
Many skeptical observers join ufologists in hoping so, because if any of the claims of ufology prove valid it would indeed rate as a major scientific breakthrough, perhaps one of the most important such events in human history (even if not, the UFO movement would then "merely" be the most powerful public delusion of the century, which is in itself well worthy of sociological and psychological study)."
Dr. Birnes what are your views on this (and I say this respectfully),antiquated article by James Oberg?
My answer is very similar to yours and I quote you, Dr. Birnes:
"Ufology is existential. I think you should go with what's there and not with what you want to be there or with what your predetermined scheme says what should be there. "
Dr. Birnes, I still would like to hear your views on this article.
Anyone please?
Regards,
Laura
Jim Oberg's having spoken his piece, it still leaves a huge gap in what is provable and what is not and the entity whose standards of provability we adhere to. The simple fact in ufology is that any actual physical evidence or UFOs are in the possession of those who don't want it released. Ships, artifacts, debris, alien tissue, any of it that may exist, has long ago been scooped up by folks or those who are either working with it so as to try to figure out what it is. I think we have to go with the documents that exist and with any records that exist. These, when they are verifiable and withstand the challenge of others, are the best evidence because they would satisfy any court in any jurisdiction. Government and military records are the best. Next is the physical radar evidence that stands the expert challenge test. This would qualify the Edwards AFB case. Then there are the military cses such as Parviz Jafari and Rendlesham. I think this nexus of cases, as well as the testimonial evidence about Roswell, are among the strongest cases and serve to establish a standard of provability that should satisfy Oberg.
Those who challenge the generally accepted ideas of science are subject to merciless criticism. It may not be polite, but this is entirely normal and customary in scientific fields. Unfortunately, the truth can get lost for a while in all the battles and bickering. And the standards regarding what is true or “everybody knows” do shift with the times.
I offer this example. In 1944, Oswald Avery and his co-workers published experiments demonstrating that deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was the hereditary material. We take that for granted today, but at the time it was sheer heresy, for the generally accepted idea was that only proteins were complex enough to act as genetic information. DNA was thought to be simply too simple for this role. The problem for Avery and his colleagues was that they actually hadn’t proved their idea beyond all doubt. Such things happen frequently in scientific research. They could not rule out the possibility that a tiny amount of protein was still lurking in their purified DNA samples and their interpretation – that DNA was the genetic material – was not reality, but a simple artifact of contamination. They were forced to acknowledge this possibility in their paper, which was published. Unfortunately, peer reviewers are not always as tolerant of divergent interpretations. It took years, but as more and more evidence accumulated the overwhelming and inescapable conclusion became what we now readily accept today - that Avery and his allies were correct about the function of DNA. But it took a good while and a lot of effort to kill the then-dominant dogma of protein as genetic material.
UFO hunters are doing the right things. By actively investigating reports, adding to the data files, sifting through the evidence available to them and building a case bit by bit, the truth is going to be revealed. No single fact, artifact or case sufficient to win over all the skeptics may in hand today, but there simply is no shame in that. After all, doggedly gathering information and just slogging forward is exactly how scientists often work. Based on what I have read in this blog, it seems ufologists and scientists have a lot in common.
Please keep working to find out just what really is out there. And then tell the rest of us what you know.
Best wishes and the very best of luck.
Was surfing the 'Net on my lunchbreak. Found this piece by Jack Landman, the Cybercity Radio guy. It seems that forty years of study and discussions with almost every living (and deceased) expert on the UFO subject has lead Mr. Landman to the following conclusion that I'm about to share with everyone.
Word of caution,(whoa), he sounds undeniably angry but I don't really blame the man. This is what he had to say on the phenomena and the government's current attitude towards it:
"There is definitely a real phenomena of an unknown type of lights and craft-like objects which appear in the skies across our world, but we, (including governments), don't know what it is, and we know very little about it, but, we know enough of this phenomena to be certain it warrants extensive, well-funded scientific research.
Yet still, no scientist can come before his peers and be taken seriously. This bizarre prejudice is carved into the stone gates of the knowledge keepers. These are the same servants of humanity who are allowed to get headlines for purveying seemingly outlandish, even absurd, possibilities, except for the fact they describe a quantum universe where anything is possible.
Knock, knock, is anybody there? Is anybody home? We live in a quantum universe, remember? After all, you guys discovered it. In quantum terms, in a quantum universe, a UFO is not such a big deal and it's not even so weird as half the things you tell us about.
So get off your high (e x p l e t i v e) horse and and get people some information about something we really want to know. Need I remind you that our taxes pay your salaries. We're not stupid. There is some fantastic evidence available to you from commercial and military pilots, radar operators and thousands of intelligent citizens of the world who did not misidentify the planet Venus."
I just thought I'd share this with everyone. P.S. All the power to you, Mr. Landman. I'll try not to stand in your path on a bad day.
What is your opinion of Jack Landman's case, Dr. Birnes?
Regards,
Laura
Mr. Landman says:
"These are the same servants of humanity who are allowed to get headlines for purveying seemingly outlandish, even absurd, possibilities, except for the fact they describe a quantum universe where anything is possible."
How true - the current Global Warming hysteria is a case in point.
I find it incredible how easily the quantum universe is ignored. I am of an atheistical turn of mind but after reading Dawkins I had to make this same observation - there is room for all things in just such a universe.
Cennad said; "-there is room for all things in just such a universe."
Point very well taken and noted.
I certainly would liked to have seen comment from those who may or may not be adherents to the zealotry you point up, Bill.
I don't know, but ask a person if they could push a button to change everything they didn't like about you, personally, make you be like them, would they push it?
If yes -- there's your devil, right there.
¥
Hi, Everyone,
We've had some problems with the website at Network Solutions. The site is back up on most machines, but here very sporadically. So if folks tell you they're having trouble with the site, the site's there, but blocked because when the site went back, some aspect of the IP address was changed. We are working this out, but not tonight.
Hi Bill,
Thanks for the report and I was wondering if something had been changed. I hope you and Nancy will have everything resolved and I wish you both good health. Thanks for the Blog and I hope more will start chiming in eventually. I wish you well on the filming of the new season of UFO Hunters too Bill. But y'all be careful and have fun. Dah Dit Dah
John Tomlinson,CET
John's Detectors
OK, all fixed now (I hope). Amazing how one little miscommunication in a DNS that an IP address is trying to reach can cause so much havoc until the ISP recycles itself overnight. But since we created computers in our own image, all of this makes sense in an all too eerie way.
Glad to be back and thanks to all for your patience.
Breathing an enormous sigh of relief,.."pheeww"...for awhile there I thought I'd just lost my favorite website.
Either that or my recent embargo on all things caffeine was playing tricks on my eyes. Was starting to see the website go poof! disappeared right into the horizon. It was then that I realized that totally giving up on caffeine was a bad idea. That steaming cup of java on my boss' desk looked so good about right now. And it helps that he's always forgetting where he put things......
Anyway, relieved to know that every thing's okay and glad to have the beloved website back.
Our entire internet existence revolves around DNS servers. I am glad network solutions have them back up and running.
On the existence of God: In a Los Angeles Times science interview of May 31, 2008, Caltech Astronomy Professor Maarten Schmidt said he did not believe in God. But in the same interview, Schmidt said that he had built a small telescope "and by God it focused." His words seem to suggest that by the grace of God and by God he had built a small telescope. Recently Vatican Chief Astronomer Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes said in a Times interview that other forms of life may exist outside Earth with "extraterrestrial brothers" and that aliens would still be God's creation.
On May 29, 2008, NBC TV National News anchor Brian Williams showed the landing on Mars of the Phoenix Mars Lander and with two white objects on the surface. Williams thought the second object might be an intelligent spacecraft observing the Phoenix Lander landing of May 2008. In turn, NASA said the first white object was the Phoenix Lander and the second white object was a camera lens flare. The possibility exists that the second white object was a huge UFO observing the Phoenix Lander landing. The word Phoenix reminded me of the rising immortal "Phoenix bird" and the huge UFO seen by thousands over Phoenix, Arizona, on March 13, 1997.